XPost: alt.christnet.second-coming.real-soon-now, alt.religion.c   
   ristian.last-days   
   From: okamuraj005@hawaii.rr.com   
      
   Doesn't that depend to a large degree on what kind of liberal you are   
   talking about?  I would think, though I may be wrong, that scientist tend to   
   be more libertarian.  If they are indeed more libertairan, than their   
   definition of what it means to be liberal would be different that what most   
   people think of a being liberal.  It would also depend on what kind of   
   libral are they?  Are they big government liberals, for instance?   
      
   "James Sullivan"  wrote in message   
   news:Xns9E275D98BBE0D4466gfdsfs@94.75.214.39...   
   >   
   > Only 5% of Scientists are rightists.   Many of them get their science from   
   > Rush Limbaugh, a college drop out.   Rightists frequently confuse science   
   > with religion and most creationists are rightists.   
   >   
   > Insane, anti-science radical right wing foaming at the mouth bozos erupt   
   > in spastic frenzy's as they claim that science is not really science, but   
   > religion and that "real" science should eminate from the minds of right   
   > wing politicians, unqualified charlatans, energy industry shills and   
   > former tobacco industry PR men.   Most of the deniers are pin heads who   
   > don't understand basic science.  They frequently confuse weather with   
   > climate and constantly repeat lies, no matter how many times they have   
   > been debunked with facts refuting them.   
   >   
   > Drooling, Ape-Like Rightist Stooges Not Intelligent Enough To Grasp   
   > Science.   
   > Rightists worship politicians who are beholden to big oil and big coal and   
   > would kiss Muslim ass by fighting sustainable alternatives.   
   >   
   >   
   > Few of the deniers have jobs, they sit around all day at their computers   
   > jibber jabbering with each other on Usenet swapping the same insane lies.   
   >   
   > That's what happens when all you're qualified to do is push broom like all   
   > the other "right wing bloggers who claim to be climate experts". They were   
   > probably a 9/11 conspiracy kooks or one of those idiots who think that the   
   > lunar landings were a lie, vaccinations are a government experiment, there   
   > were WMD's in Iraq and tobacco has no link to cancer!   
   >   
   > Most right wing retards believe that it's a big socialist cabal under Al   
   > Gore.  And when you point out that most major corporations are endeavoring   
   > to reduce their GHG emissions or the insurance industry (who most deniers   
   > strongly endorse in US health care) they start yammering on about how   
   > they're in on the great conspiracy as well.   
   >   
   > Then they continue to cite fabrications from dubious, amateur websites   
   > like "c3headlines", anonymous uncredentialed bloggers, crackpots, right   
   > wing think tanks and retired scientists turned fossil fuel industry shills   
   > for their "facts".   
   >   
   > Even more hilarious, the majority of the scientists they cite never worked   
   > in the field of climatology in the first place, so it's like citing the   
   > opinion of your dentist for a heart condition.   
   >   
   > Most of these idiots don't even go outside because they're so mentally   
   > unstable.   
   >   
   > Most Rightists aren't intelligent enough to be scientists, making them   
   > gullible and easily duped by snake oil salesmen.   
   >   
   > Only Six Percent Of Scientists Are Republicans: Pew Poll   
   >   
   > A new study by the Pew Research Center finds that the GOP is   
   > alienating scientists to a startling degree.   
   >   
   > Only six percent of America's scientists identify themselves as   
   > Republicans; fifty-five percent call themselves Democrats. By   
   > comparison, 23 percent of the overall public considers itself   
   > Republican, while 35 percent say they're Democrats.   
   >   
   > The ideological discrepancies were similar. Nine percent of scientists   
   > said they were "conservative" while 52 percent described themselves as   
   > "liberal," and 14 percent "very liberal." The corresponding figures   
   > for the general public were 37, 20 and 5 percent.   
   >   
   > Among the general public, moderates and independents ranked higher   
   > than any party or ideology. But among scientists, there were   
   > considerably more Democrats (55%) than independents (32%) and   
   > Republicans (6%) put together. There were also more liberals (52%)   
   > than moderates (35%) and conservatives (9%) combined.   
   >   
   > "These results were not a complete surprise," said Scott Keeter,   
   > Director of Survey Research at Pew, in an interview with the   
   > Huffington Post. He said they can be mostly attributed to "the   
   > difference between Democratic and Republican parties with respect to   
   > issues."   
   >   
   > The wide ideological and partisan gap among scientists may have been   
   > exacerbated by the Bush administration, which often disputed broad   
   > scientific consensus on topics such as evolution and climate change.   
   >   
   > Keeter acknowledged this factor, but said that "many of these disputes   
   > probably predate the Bush administration," noting that scientists have   
   > favored liberal views in numerous past studies.   
   >   
   > Religion also plays a role. Republicans tend to promote the centrality   
   > of religion more often than Democrats, and while 95 percent of the   
   > public said they believe in "God" or "a higher power," only 51 percent   
   > of scientists claimed either.   
   >   
   > "Many Republicans, especially the Evangelical wing of the party, are   
   > skeptical of evolution, and have argued for the teaching of   
   > creationism and intelligent design in school," said Keeter.   
   >   
   > The results could merely be a reflection of how scientists see the   
   > world, rather than of partisan loyalties. In a series of questions   
   > posed, the study found that the answers of scientists were   
   > consistently more in line with liberal viewpoints than those of the   
   > general public.   
   >   
   > "The Republican Party has a number of leaders within it who have   
   > challenged the accuracy of scientific findings on issues such as   
   > climate change, evolution and stem cell research," Keeter told the   
   > Huffington Post.   
   >   
   > "It suggests that scientists who are Republicans might feel some   
   > dissonance from the party's position on some things that are important   
   > to them. And while there are Republicans in the scientist sample,   
   > there are really not that many," he said.   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   > ----   
   >   
   >   
   > Expert credibility in climate change   
   >   
   >   1. William R. L. Anderegga,1,   
   >   2. James W. Prallb,   
   >   3. Jacob Haroldc, and   
   >   4. Stephen H. Schneidera,d,1   
   >   
   > Abstract   
   >   
   > Although preliminary estimates from published literature and expert   
   > surveys suggest striking agreement among climate scientists on the tenets   
   > of anthropogenic climate change (ACC), the American public expresses   
   > substantial doubt about both the anthropogenic cause and the level of   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)